ALLAHABAD BANK Vs. A VARADAMMAL
LAWS(DR)-2006-10-2
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on October 11,2006

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.Gnanaprakasam, - (1.) THIS RA (SA)-34/2006 is directed as against the Order dated 22.6.2005 passed by the DRT-I at Chennai, in Securitisation Appeal No. 31/2004. Heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the respondent.
(2.) The respondent viz. A. Varadammal, filed the Securitisation Appeal No. 31/ 2004 before the DRT-I at Chennai, questioning the action taken by the appellant Bank on the ground that the proceedings taken under the Securitisation Act is not maintainable as recovery proceedings had already been taken and the same is pending before the Tribunal in OA-134/2004 and, therefore, two parallel proceedings are not sustainable, and that the notice issued under Section 13(2) is not valid and proper. During the course of the argument before the Tribunal, it appears that the respondent has raised a plea that she has not received the notice issued under Section 13(2)of the SRFAESI Act. The learned PO of the DRT, had considered all the grounds raised by the respondent herein and rejected all the grounds, but however held that the notice said to have been issued under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act, are vitiated for want of compliance of the provisions mandatory under the Act and, therefore, set aside the notices and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed.
(3.) DURING the course of the argument, the learned Advocate for the appellant has taken me through the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SRFAESI Act, which is available at Page 15 of the typeset of papers wherefrom it is made out that the notice was directly taken to the respondent on 22.1.2002, and the same was served to the respondent on 30.11.2002, and the same is evidenced by the postal acknowledgement dated 30.11.2002, which is available at Page 17 of the typeset of papers. Pursuant to the same, notice under Section 13(4) was also issued and the same was personally served and a knowledge by the respondent herein on 24.9.2004, which is available at Para 26 of the typeset of papers. These documents would explicitly make it clear that the notice issued by the appellant under Section 13(2) of the SRFAESI Act, was duly served upon the respondent and the observation of the Tribunal that it was not served to the respondent, but whereas, it was served only to M/s. Channel Business (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd., Mr. S. Venugopal, Managing Director and Mrs. Usha Venugopal, Director, M/s. Channel Business Chennai (P) Ltd., but not to the respondent, is not correct. The learned Advocate for the appellant is able to clarify how the notice under Section 13(2) was issued. It is true that the notice dated 22.11.2002 was addressed to (1) M/s. Channel Business Chennai (P) Ltd., (2) Mr. S. Venugopal, M.D., (3) Mrs. Usha Venugopal, Director, and a copy of the same was marked to A. Varadammal the respondent herein, among others. Likewise, the notice dated 22.11.2002 issued to the respondent viz. Varadammal under Section 13(2) of the SRFAESI Act, copy of the same was marked to (1) M/s. Channel Business Chennai (P) Ltd., (2) Venugopal and (3) Usha Venugopal. It is further submitted, the respondent had taken this ground only during the course of the argument of the appeal before the DRT and the files were produced before the DRT. It is also pointed out that no such ground was taken in the grounds of appeal filed by the respondent before the DRT. The learned PO had perused and relied upon the notice dated 22.11.2002 addressed to M/s. Channel Business Chennai (P) Ltd. and two others and also the notice dated 22.11.2002 addressed to G. Chakrabani, and copy of the same was marked to three others, the notice dated 22.11.2002 addressed to S. Ravishankar and others, copy marked to M/s. Channel Business Chennai (P) Ltd., and two others, but had not adverted to the notice dated 22.11.2002 issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act addressed to A. Varadammal, which is available at Page 15 of the typeset of papers. That only in the said circumstances, the Tribunal held that the notice dated 22.11.2002 issued under Section 13(2) of the Act was not directly addressed to the respondent and only a copy thereof was marked to her along with S. Ravishankar, Usha Ravishankar, G. Chakrabani, the other guarantors. Most probably, the files produced before the DRT during the course of the argument might not have been considered either by oversight or otherwise. But, however, the fact remains that the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act, addressed to A. Varadammal contains the required particulars of the amount payable by the borrower and the secured assets intended to be enforced by the secured creditor in the event of the non-payment of the secured debt by the borrower and, as such, I come to the conclusion that the observation of the Tribunal that no notice was directly sent to the respondent as required under Section 13(2) of the SRFAESI Act, is not proper. In fact, no such ground was taken in the grounds of appeal filed by the respondent before the DRT also. Even otherwise, the appellant is able to prove and satisfy that such a notice was sent to the respondent directly on 22.11.2002 and subsequently Possession Notice was issued under Section 13(4) of the Act, and the same was duly acknowledged by the respondent on 24.9.2004. In such view of the matter, I come to the conclusion that the order passed by the DRT is not proper and the same is liable to be set aside.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.